JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum Where is the morality of the young people going?

Hey Jim,

I guess your government doesn't collect enough money to support a sick monarchy AND the kingdom, but at least the monarchy can sleep well!

Big Jim, We experience the same thing here in some sections of the country. This is what happens when society tries to be "big brother" to everyone. There's not enough money to protect everyone all the time. In Nashville, if I dial for police emergency, it takes a good 20 minutes for the police to arrive. That doesn't help when someone's trying to bust down the door, or is already in and I'm barricaded in my bedroom. Even our Supreme Court has decided that it's not the police's job to protect:

"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation." Read the full story here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Yet, the bureaucrats who want to force us to pay for their non-existent protection, propagate the myth that a government can take the place of personal responsiblity. So entire areas of our country make it illegal to own guns. Then when the populace, so frightened of the armed criminals ( who, of course, take over, ) stops reporting crime, the complicit media touts a decrease in crime. But even then, the crime rate rises in such areas:

"WASHINGTON (Map, News) - District residents have been the guinea pigs in a failed 30-year-old experiment in social engineering. Three decades of strict gun control laws have not made the capital city streets safer. On the contrary, since 1976, D.C. murder rate has increased 32 percent, and violent crimes committed during the first few weeks of 2007 by gun-wielding thugs are up a staggering 50 percent over the same period last year"

http://www.examiner.com/a-573391~Freedom_from_fear_is_also_a_right.html


Here in Tennessee, as in many states, we have state-issued permits that allow the law-abiding citizen to carry a handuns. It requires that one take a class which covers firearm law, self-defense law, gun safety, and practial shooting. Then one must pass both written and practical tests. Of course, there is no permit needed to own a hangun and keep or carry it on one's own property. It's sad that we need a permit to do something that our Constitution guaranteed as a right, but it seems that due to racism, many states, counties, and towns adopted laws against handgun carry to stop minorities from protecting themselves:

"The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws, and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, governments openly stated that gun control laws were useful for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place" and for quieting the racial fears of whites.

'Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. This is not surprising. Blacks in the New World were often slaves, and revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers and the "dangerous" example that blacks could actually handle freedom often led New World governments to disarm all blacks, both slave and free.'" Read it all here:
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

It's not surprising that those who think they know best how one should live their lives, and seek to make laws to control others, remove their personal resonibility, and make them dependant, would borrow ideas from those who thought themselves superior to others.

A sign of the times.

Mike

Thanks Mike great info as usual. As a pacifist I must disagree with gun toting but do not want an argument. Murder is on the increase and guns are more common now but we in the UK can say that we are more than happy not to bear arms. At least you know that the guy with a gun is a criminal in the eyes of the law in this country. We tend not to have mass murders and shootouts like in other places that permit the bearing of arms. We even changed the punishment for offensive weapons like knives and anybody found in possesion will get a stiff prison sentence providing they are caught of course.

Jim, I believe in peace, am a peace loving man. I do not call myself a "pacifist," though, because I would defend myself, my family, or others (depending on the situation) from threat of imminent bodily harm or death.

Yes, we have similar laws for persons with weapons. Those who break the law, however, do not disarm themselves because it is illegal.

You say a guy with a gun in your country is a criminal. I'll bet the prime minister has guys with guns all around him. I'll bet there are guys with guns around the royal palace. I'll bet every police station has an arsenal of weapons. So guys with guns aren't really illegal, the possession of guns by law abiding civilian citizens is.

Yes, we do have the phenomenon of the "mass shooting." This is brought on by the fact that law-abiding gun owners are not permitted to carry weapons into certain areas known as "gun-free zones." Nearly 100% of these mass shootings take place in those "gun-free zones." There seems to be a "type" that's emerging, which is more likely to commit such crimes. They include a vengeful nature, borderline personality disorder (blaming everything on others, never taking personal responsibility...hmmm), and cowardice (they never pick police stations, gun shops, or NRA meetings to do this, only places where they know they will not be confronted by armed defenders.)

Recently, in Colorado, one such murderer made a mistake. He picked a church to carry out his act, killed a few people and was prepared to carry out a massacre, but was confronted by a member of the church, a woman who was an armed citizen and who volunteered to help "guard" the church against just such an event. The woman insisted that he surrender. When he kept firing, she shot him, wounding him, so the murderer with a rifle and several guns didn't fight, he killed himself. Seems to me to be a cowardly thing, an evil act by someone who blamed everyone else but himself.

Anyway here are some interesting quotes and articles.

"Excluding murder, Scots are almost three times more likely to be victims of assault than Americans. England and Wales have proportionately the second highest number of assaults.

Many experts believe Britain’s heavy-drinking culture is to blame for the frequency with which fights break out." this is from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785929,00.html

So you folks might want to outlaw drinking!


And there's this: "Scotland has the second highest murder rate in western Europe and Scots are more than three times more likely to be murdered than people in England and Wales, according to a study by the World Health Organisation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,1578388,00.html

Jim, I'm worried for you, buddy. Move here to Tennessee. I've got a spare room and I'll protect you.

I am a pacifist but will not stand back and let someone especially my friends or family be harmed. That is a no brainer.
Yes drink is a problem in Scotland and so is drugs BUT THAT IS PRETTY UNIVERSAL. Can you imagine letting those folk have guns. Sheesh frightening thought. In "real" emergencies police attend within minutes but it only takes a second to get shot. Scary thought. I would move but would want a tank, Kevlar vest and a bunker if everybody had guns. I could not contemplate owning a gun. Interesting facts about murder rates how does it compare to Tennesee and other USA parts?
Do you stay up late and are you a good cook?...How are you at laundry and cleaning?...do you promise not to nag me and moan when I am late in?....Do you like loud music?...and snoring...and farting?...and smoking?
On the plus side I do not drink much.

Jim,

I've no doubt that you and I are more alike than different. That's why I enjoy arguing with you.

I'll answer all your questions in a bit, got a session.

Well Mike, it looks like D.C. will get the chance to see what the end of the "experiment" looks like. A federal judge struck down D.C.'s gun laws last year, and the Supreme Court will hear it later this year.
Anton Scalia's bunch sided with the cops in the Gonzales case, but I doubt they'll do it again.

I think gun laws in D.C. are too strict too, but they aren't the problem there.

Violence is not up across the board in D.C. It's a youth, class and race issue. Look at each side of the green line in the city and see the differences.

Guns are always going to be available in D.C. because Maryland and Virginia don't have strict gun laws. But once D.C.'s laws are struck down, by golly, all those poor minority folks can feel good about some firefights with the gangs! Come on, all you meek obeyers of the law. Let's go shoot at some bangers. Why not? We can use legal guns now!

Yessiree, there's nothing racist about that idea. It's their personal responsibility! Let them shoot it out while we buy up condos in Georgetown gated communities.

Come on, man. You're torqued that the cops in Bumbdiddle, Colo., didn't do all they could to protect some kids, but you're blaming the lack of guns for violence in D.C.? How about the lack of cops in violent areas there? How about the lack of jobs? How about the lack of fathers? None of those issues can be solved by a gun.

If that lady in Colorado had a gun, she still wouldn't have been able to stop her husband -- she wasn't there when he took the kids. Maybe if he didn't have access to a gun, things might have turned out better.

Or maybe the bureaucracy could arm all the kids with crazy dads. That's it, sweetie, bust a cap in daddy's ass.

Joyboy:
"Well Mike, it looks like D.C. will get the chance to see what the end of the "experiment" looks like. A federal judge struck down D.C.'s gun laws last year, and the Supreme Court will hear it later this year.
Anton Scalia's bunch sided with the cops in the Gonzales case, but I doubt they'll do it again.
I think gun laws in D.C. are too strict too, but they aren't the problem there."

Mike:
I agree, They're not the problem. The problem is bad behavior. Rooted in...well, you'll explain what it's rooted in here:

Joyboy:
"Violence is not up across the board in D.C. It's a youth, class and race issue. Look at each side of the green line in the city and see the differences."

Mike:
Yes, I agree there also. Guns aren't at all the solution, nor are they the problem. They are simplly a means of allowing law abiding folk to protect themselves from armed criminal folk.

Joyboy:
"Guns are always going to be available in D.C. because Maryland and Virginia don't have strict gun laws. But once D.C.'s laws are struck down, by golly, all those poor minority folks can feel good about some firefights with the gangs!"

Mike:
Do you really think that? I'd be more inclined to believe that law abiding people will not be hostage to criminals who will resort to violence. I believe law abiding people are...well...law abiding, basically decent folk.

Joyboy:
""Come on, all you meek obeyers of the law. Let's go shoot at some bangers. Why not? We can use legal guns now!"

Mike:
I would suggest that abiding law is not always meekness or weakness. It's not the guns that are legal or illegal, it's the posession of them. The posession of them by felons or for felonious acts is illegal everywhere in the U.S. and shooting at anyone who is not percieved as an immediate threat of bodily harm or death is illegal. So, anyone so sick or evil enough to want to shoot people because of what they MAY do is like...well...like trying to stop law abiding citizens from owning guns because of what THEY may do.

Joyboy:
"Yessiree, there's nothing racist about that idea. It's their personal responsibility! Let them shoot it out while we buy up condos in Georgetown gated communities."

Mike:
I disagree, there's something very racist about your statement, but I believe you are using hyperbole and sarcasm, not actually believing those deplorable statements or believing that anyone disagreeing with you thinks that way. I've never bought a condo or lived in Georgetown, have you? To whom are you writing? Or are you just using racial and/or class stereotypes in the intrerest of debate?

Joyboy:
"Come on, man. You're torqued that the cops in Bumbdiddle, Colo., didn't do all they could to protect some kids, but you're blaming the lack of guns for violence in D.C.? How about the lack of cops in violent areas there? How about the lack of jobs? How about the lack of fathers? None of those issues can be solved by a gun."

Mike:
What makes you think I'm torqued? I'm saddened. There's no lack of guns in D.C., but the city has decided to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to own one, How about the lack of cops? There's not enough money in the U.S. economy to buy enough cops to protect a population of disarmed law abiders from armed criminals. The police aren't there to protect you, they are there to uphold the law, that's what the Supreme Court says. How about the lack of fathers? It's a lack of personal responsibility. And, yes, none of those issues can be solved by a gun.

Joyboy:
"If that lady in Colorado had a gun, she still wouldn't have been able to stop her husband -- she wasn't there when he took the kids. Maybe if he didn't have access to a gun, things might have turned out better."

Mike:
'That wasn't the point of the example (and her unfortunate situation neither supports nor fails legal gun ownership)...the point was the Supreme Court ruled that the police were not responsible to protect her. Let's see, the Supreme Court says the woman's protection was not the police's responsibility? So who's responsibility is it? Could it be......hers?

Joyboy:
"Or maybe the bureaucracy could arm all the kids with crazy dads. That's it, sweetie, bust a cap in daddy's ass."

Mike:
If some of them thought it would keep their jobs, they would.

All the Best,
Mike

Some people grow up with guns and some don't. Those who don't, as a rule, believe guns are dangerous and don't understand the necessity for them. Those who do, as a rule, believe guns can be handled safely and don't understand why people think people shouldn't have them. Then there are those who use guns to commit crime.

There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue, and the second Amendment to the Constitution does give U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free State. The thing is, a well-regulated militia today costs about $550 billion per year.

Obviously, the problem is not the guns themselves, but rather the irresponsible gun owner. A child finds a gun in his parents' closet, takes it outside and shoots himself or a neighbor kid. Neither advocates nor opponents want this kind of thing to happen, but it does. It isn't the gun's fault. It may be the irresponsible gun-owner's fault, but it's law enforcement's lax attitude regarding gun ownership that fosters the atmosphere that makes such a thing possible.

I bought my first gun after a nineteen-year-old girl was abducted here in Bloomington, while riding her bicycle, and later shot-gunned to death. I went to a gun shop and bought a 9mm Sig Sauer. Believing I needed a permit to own a gun, I went to the Police Department, answered some questions, left a thumb print, took an application which I sent, along with fifteen dollars, to the State, and got my permit in the mail. When it arrived, I was quite surprised to discover it was a carry permit. I'm so naive. In Indiana, one does not need a permit to own a gun, and one can get a permit to carry a gun even if one doesn't know how to use a gun.

I thought I had better register this gun, so I called the Police Dept. where I'd gotten the application. They told me I would have to register my gun with the Sheriff's Dept. So I called the Sheriff's Dept. and was told I would have to register my gun with the State Police. So I called the State Police and they told me that they didn't have the forms and that I needed to call the State Police in Indianapolis, which I did, and was told that I needed to register a gun in the county in which I lived. I devoted the better part of an afternoon to this, trying to register a gun, and contacted four different law enforcement agencies, and not one of them knew how to register a gun. I could have one gun or sixty, and law enforcement wouldn't be one whit the wiser.

It is this kind of atmosphere that leads to accidental gunshots and fosters gun-related crime. It's the same kind of atmosphere that allows a drunk driver with seven prior drunk-drivng arrests, on probation and driving without a license, to kill a friend's wife and five-year-old son. Maybe law enforcement could do a better job of preventing drunk-driving deaths if they would just give drunk drivers guns.

There are folks who don't like guns. They would not trust responsible, law abiding citizens with guns. There are folks who would not trust me with a gun, as if the gun were magic. As if the gun itself would suddenly transform me into a wild-eyed, reckless individual, intoxicated by the "magic" gun, who would shoot indiscriminately endangering all in my vicinity. Those same folks will walk out in front of my moving automobile at a crosswalk, simply because they assume that I will responsibly stop at red light or stop sign. They trust me (the same old me who they won't trust with a gun) with an automobile. I guess the automobile is not magic.

Folks also point to gun laws as the cure that will stop burglary and violent crime, yet statistics show that responsible gun owners do a lot to prevent violent crime. The Kleck/Gertz survey found that guns are used for protection 2.5 million times a year. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.) A study for the Justice Department found that 34% of felons have been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen, and 40% have not committed crimes because they feared that their potential victims were armed. (James D. Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous, 1986.) In 2005, according to the FBI, there were approx. 16,000 murders, total, with guns or not...there would be fewer murders by gun.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
When you compare that with 2.5 million folks a year who are protected by guns...well...it becomes obvious.

Folks are concerned about accidental gun deaths. I've been around guns all my life and have never had an accident. I shoot weekly with some fellows, none of them have ever had an accident. I have never met anyone personally who has had an accident with a gun. I'm also a safe driver, have driven professionally as a cab driver and a bus driver, but I have been in auto accidents. Almost every driver I know has been in an accident. Accidental gun deaths are already quite low - about 1500 per year. In 2005, there were 43,000 deaths by automobile accident. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-20-vehicleaccidents_x.htm
Now, that would mean that if autos saved...uh...carry over the two...adjust for windage....move the decimal place...if autos saved about 4 million people per year, they'd be equal with guns....but wait a minute, guns didn't cause ALL 16,000 murders in 2005, maybe some of those murders were caused...BY automobiles! Whatcha wanna bet? SAVE LIVES, OUTLAW AUTOMOBILES. Or maybe, we should just insist that drivers exhibit (oh, oh, am I going to type this? Yes, yes, I must. It's the only logical conclusion! ) personal responsibility.

All the Best,
Mike

P.S. By the way, Richard, we don't register guns in the U.S., it's unconstitutional. Some areas are trying to outlaw gun ownership itself, that's what the Supreme Court will be decidng on soon, it's the Washington D.C. case. You got the run around from people who didn't know that. States will regulate gun sales, but not among private individuals. In Tennessee, to buy a gun from a gun store, you must be fingerprinted and pass a state background check. The state does not register the gun's serial number, just the sale of a gun. I don't know the law in Indiana.

It seems peculiar to me that auto registration and voter registration are constitutional, while gun registration is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote.
Mike, I support your right to own a gun, even though I doubt you will ever be involved in a well-regulated militia. I support that right because I support your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do you think you might possibly become a member of a well-regulated militia?

Richard,

Citizens register to vote so they can be counted. There's a Constitutional mandate that votes be counted. Citizen's don't register guns, there's a Constitutional reminder that they have a right to own them (the right existed long before the Constitution was in place).

I doubt if I'll ever have to fight as part of the militia that the Constitution says is necessary. I am willing, however, and as a gun owner, am able. Let's look at the entire second amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right that I have to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, why? So we may preserve a militia, which the dictionary defines as: "an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers." And why do we need this army of ordinary citizens? for "the security of a free state." In a free state, folks are personally responsible for their security, who maintains our security? We do. It is to be a well regulated militia, what regulates it? The Constitution regulates it, it proscribes the rights and duties of a citizen which the militia must not violate. It was this same militia that created the freedom and independence that allowed the Constitution to be adopted. Now, it is to protect us since, as we've seen according to the Supreme Court, it is not up to the police to protect us...it is up to us. Personal responsibility. It's another way of saying "liberty."

We Minnesotans reserve the right to bear arms.

But most of us wear long sleeves.

Hi Mike anything can be a weapon. I saw a magician cut a huge chunk out of a watermelon just tossing a playing card at it. Neat trick it was for real. However GUNS are designed solely as a weapon. They are designed specifically for killing. I can see no reason why anybody would need one or want one for that matter UNLESS THEY PLAN TO SHOOT SOMEBODY. That in my opinion is a good enough reason to ban guns altogether. The army and the police etc have guns because they might HAVE to shoot somebody. That is another debate altogether.
Oh folk might say that they have a right to self defence. Well that is a no brainer as far as I am concerned. Defence from what? Shoot first ask questions later? If someone is going to kill you they probably wont let you have time to get your gun out. Many innocent folk are shot for no reason? I thought he was going to kill me, honest, he was trying to get in my window. I did not notice he was the window cleaner.
Criminals will always have illegal guns and use them but to allow everybody guns is crazy.
Less guns in circulation less guns used. It works in the UK despite your crime figures.

OK Smarty I was in a hurry I made a mistake LOL. That is not what I really meant. I meant "Less guns in circulation less folk get shot despite your crime figures showing an increase in overall crime."

Sorry, I should have known you made a mistake, my mistake, I'll expect them from now on

So, how do you explain this: "25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Cannot wait to see your mistakes.
Anyway to your article the statistics prove nothing other than a small town has fluctuating crime rates because just a few less or a few more crimes make huge differences to the statistics. As they say there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Take a small quiet town, where no doubt, everybody knows everybody and tend to look after their neighbours, give them all guns you will not turn them into murderers.
Take a huge metropolis with a multicultural and diverse population which has crime, gangs, drugs and racial problems. Make them all carry guns then wait for world war 3.

Well, I don't believe anyone should make anyone else carry a gun...or not. However, I can't imagine someone not seeing a reason for anyone to own a gun unless they want to shoot someone.

OH! LOOK! HERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH ROYALS WANTING TO SHOOT SOMEONE!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/13/nkate113.xml

Don't get me started on the barbaric royals. We do not need them or their guns. No earthly reasons why folk have to go out and shoot animals. The folk who generally do shoot animals live in mansions own huge estates and speak with a stiff upper lip. It is not as if they are on a low income and desperate for the meat.

Oh, you mean they weren't looking for someone to shoot?

The truth is, there are a lot of folks who own guns that aren't looking for someone to shoot. I happen to be one. Also there are a lot of guns that are not designed solely as a weapon, my wife happens to own one. If you ever visit, we'll be happy to show you, I'll even take you out to the range for some target shooting.

Of course, things are different there than they are here. Here, it's not predominantly the "privileged" folk who are hunters. A lot of regular folks hunt, often on public land, and many harvest a great deal of their meat by doing so, rather than sloughing off their "dirty work" of killing and butchering their meat, they take responsibility themselves...personal responsibility (I just had to type that ). Here's a group that uses their bounty to feed the poor: http://www.nrahq.org/hunting/hunterhungry.asp

We are natural hunter gatherers. Not much to shoot in them thar city streets however. Except the odd cat, dog or human.
I have heard of shooting clay pigeons it's commonplace here in the wilder parts of Scotland. They sure are hard to cook and make a real mess of your teeth. Do not see the point.
There are a number of firing ranges and shooting clubs. They are very stringently licenced and controlled. Members only and the guns are all locked up in special safes when not in use. I do not see the point myself but do not have a problem with it.

If the time ever comes when a well-regulated militia is necessary, guns will no doubt come in handy. But, practically-speaking, if conditions were so dire that an army made up of ordinary citizens was necessary to preserve freedom, I doubt whether anyone would be worrying too much about the legality of bearing arms.
I am not debating the Second Amendment to the Constitution. I just think arguing about it is a ridiculous waste of time. Get real. If a militia were to form tomorrow, the police would shut it down in the interest of security.

Richard, I know of someone who holds a handgun carry permit and was asked for help by the police. In doing so, I suggest, he was part of the well-regulated militia that the Constitution calls for.

But, I agree, arguing about it is a ridiculous waste of time, so I wish those who disagree with me would stop arguing

Jim, we here in the U.S. are a strange lot, that's for sure. Learning about our problems and issues is difficult because it's hard to separate facts from agendas, again, there is the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" quote from one of our most famous and influential authors, Mark Twain.

Here's a good site, it deals plainly in facts, folks there have taken pains to insure that facts are not "slanted" to support opinions. It's a very interesting window into the U.S. experience:

http://justfacts.com/index.asp?page=home

Enjoy.

To the two of you, and to all, so long for now and thanks for all the fun. May God bless you and may you argue well and civilly all your days.

Mike

Wow
I never thought of myself as a Royal and my little 35 acres of woods and swamp can hardly be called an estate, LOL.
But I have Barbarically shot and killed 19 whitetail deer on my property in the last twelve years. I prefer venison to beef. It has no fat.
Fed my family well I must add. I have shot them with a 12 guage shotgun, a 20 guage shotgun with a rifled barrel, a 54 caliber side lock muzzleloader and my Bow and Arrow.
I own several shotguns and a couple muzzleloaders and a bow. I have never had occasion to use a gun for self defense but I did use a handgun to hold a Robber for the police once.
I have only known one person who has actually defended himself with a firearm from a criminal. A fellow I know shot and killed two intruders in his home in Chicago. I say good for him. It would have cost about $500,000 a year to house the two in prison. He saved us a lot of tax payer money. That should be the rule rather than the exception.

Bill Did you kill for pleasure or food? Big difference.

Big Jim
if I told you there was no sport or fun involved in deer hunting I would be a liar. I do harvest the deer for food but I don't have to. I could just go to the store and buy beef. Matter of fact I did just that for our Christmas Dinner. I bought a Prime Rib Roast. It cost me $112.00US. It was delicious. But had a lot of fat, LOL.

I enjoy Deer hunting. Just like I enjoy Turkey hunting and occasionally Rabbit hunting. Not a lot of Rabbits here though. Too many coyotes. Now there is something people shoot just for fun, Coyotes. Kind of like fox hunting I guess. I don't shoot anything I don't plan to eat.
I also like fishing. It is fun to catch fish. It is also fun to eat them, especially Walleye. If you never had Walleye you would be in for a treat. I use a pole with a very sharp hook to catch fish. It don't kill them but I bet it hurts like hell when that hook goes in. Of course I have to kill the fish with my hands after I catch them, or just let them suffocate.

I'm not sure which is better. A bullet through the lungs or a Hook in the lip.

But I still think it beats a sledge hammer between the eyes.

Now I have shot the occasional Raccoon trying to raid my Chicken house. I have lost a lot of chickens to raccoons. If I see them in my chicken house I kill them. I don't eat raccoons. Some folks do, I don't.

So I don't want any kind of gun controls. I don't think it is any bodies business how many guns I have. I don't have any handguns right now. No real use for them. But when I lived in Chicago I had one. I can protect my property just fine with a shotgun.

Bill I am really a country boy at heart. I live on the outskirts of Edinburgh and where I was brought up was farmland. There was a stream about twenty paces from my front door. I spent most of my youth in there catching trout. Usually with my hands. Guddling we called it. I used to have ferrets and go hunting rabbits which were plentiful. We had fresh eggs and live chickens which my grandfather killed while we watched. No big deal it was a part of life. The one thing we did have was respect for property, elders, the police, the farmer who let us do a lot of things on his land and our wildlife and surroundings. We did get up to mischief I am no angel but nothing criminal or hurtful. I have no problem with country folk having guns. But folk in cities who have no respect for themselves, their neighbours or surroundings and have never touched a live chicken let alone wrung it's neck no way. THEY NEED EDUCATIN FIRST.

One day, a friend and I killed a couple dozen chickens. We were going to use axes at the chopping block, but the number of chickens made it unwieldy, so we wrung their necks (I've choked a lot of chickens in my day ). Anyway, after all that killing, I felt like Joe Stalin. So, to purge myself, I wrote this song.

Dr. Doom
(c)1987 words and music by Mike Dunbar

Watch out all you chickens
I am Dr. Doom
My hatchet is your guillotine
My fryin' pan's your tomb
Who's that slowly creepin' into your room?
It's Dr. Doom

Look out all you catfish
Here comes Mr. Death
Once I get you on my hook
You'll breathe your last fish breath
Who's that slowly creepin' into your room?
It's Dr. Doom

Careful all you ladies
They call me Mr. Bad
Chances are you'll say that I'm
The best you ever had
Who's that slowly creepin' into your room?
Dr. Doom

Hi All,

It's amazing the twists and turns this little thread has taken. I'll just throw my two cents into the latest pool. If we could find a way to make sure guns were out of the hands of the criminals here, or if we had enough police to insure the safety of everyone from those same criminals, I would give up my guns; except for those I occasionally use to hunt,which I both enjoy, and use as a supply for good healthy meat. And I promise not to use them to shoot any immoral youth unless they try to hurt me, mine, or an innocent; and there's no other way to stop them...

The argument on D.C.'s gun laws that the Supreme Court is hearing is on the issue of whether the right to bear arms is a "militia" or an individual right.


In 2003, Nashville had an overall higher crime rate than Washington, D.C., according to the FBI. It's murder rate was far lower. But Nashville was way higher in forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary and larcency.

Despite those looser gun laws you enjoy.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

If you look at the cities with the highest murder rates, you'll see that gun laws aren't the problem. It's poverty, gangs and drugs.

And the good, law abiding folks in New Orleans or Baltimore or Detroit didn't apparently go out and buy guns to keep from getting killed. It won't happen in D.C., either. The idea that the minorities who are overwhelmingly in the circumstantial culture of poverty, gangs and drugs in D.C. can arm themselves out of the problem as some kind of personal responsibility has a racial tone. Sorry for the hyperbole before, but it just does.
Gun laws are a distraction from the real problems.

When you consider how many more people use cars than guns, how many times they use them, and how long the periods of time are that they are used -- without doing the math -- it's pretty apparent that cars are safer than guns if only 30 times more people accidentlly die from their use every year.

The "study" you cite of felons who were "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen, and 40% have not committed crimes because they feared that their potential victims were armed" doesn't say anything about who those felons were -- what crimes they committed or even if they were armed when they committed the crime. Were they armed when they decided not to attack someone they thought was armed?

That statistics also combines apples and oranges -- if someone was captured or shot at or wounded, they went ahead and committed the crime. Did they commit the crime even if they were wounded or shot at?
Crappy study.

The K-G study about 2.5 million cases of defensive gun use is hardly a non-controversial study. For example:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Hemenway1.htm

Studies show that 80% of all studies are misrepresented.

Richard,

I was going to present these:

Crime rates continue to drop: As of August, 2007, homicides are down 30% over last year. Nashville has its lowest UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) crime rate since 1989. The burglary rate is at its lowest point since 1972.
http://www.nashville.gov/news/2007/0831_accomplishments.htm#ps


In the District, gun crime increased last year, with armed robberies up 24 percent and shootings and other violent gun crimes up 7 percent from last year, according to preliminary crime data. Property crime rose by 4 percent, with the biggest jumps in arson and theft, the data showed.Through early New Year's Eve, counties in Northern Virginia reported 33 slayings in 2007, down from 48 in 2006. Prince George's recorded 144 killings, up from 136, and the District had 181, up from 169. In Washington's other Maryland suburbs, the number of homicides remained relatively steady or fell.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/31/AR2007123102215.html

...and make some clever remark about trends and new data vs. five year old data...but I changed my mind. You're right. 80% of this is crap. Besides, "World of Beretta" is on the Outdoor Channel, and I want to see what new guns they're offering in 2008. So here's to 2008, I don't know if you're ever in Nashville, Richard, but if you are going to be, drop me a PM, I'll buy lunch and show you the city. If you'd like, I'll even take you to the range for some target shooting, if you'd rather not, that's ok, I'll show you Music Row.

All the Best,
Mike

That sounds like fun, Mike. Thanks. Would it be unwise for me to carry my handguns across the State line?

And nobody wants the death penalty?? But what are we going to do, let the criminals take over? In Jackson, MS there is someone shot or stabbed every day it seems from the news on TV. I found out yesterday that the man who used to work where I did as a Human Resources person was murdered up in TN. He stopped at a truck stop and someone robbed him, killed him and stole his car.
It makes me scared to go anywhere alone.

Richard,

No problem here in the land of the free. Federal law, Code of Federal Regulations Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44 says you can do it, if it's unloaded and in the trunk, or if you have a permit with reciprocity from all the states in which you travel. Keep me posted when you're planning to be here so we can co-ordinate our calenders. You'll like it here, even if you're not at all safe.

And the invitation applies to you also, Joyboy, if you're in Nashville, I'll be happy to show you around. I love the Northwest myself, used to teach as a visiting professor for Portland State University at their "Haystack" program in Cannon Beach. The Northwest is one of my favorite areas, my wife and I had our honeymoon at Cannon Beach. If I had to live somewhere else, it would be Oregon. Washington State is gorgeous also. But I highly recommend Tennessee, so come visit us sometime.

This is another debate, like the existence of God, that will never end. The people who believe guns can be used by sane people will never give up that right. The people who don't like guns will never stop trying to take them away. You can make statistics say anything you want, and if you can't, you can always pay another one to do another study. Personally, I'll keep mine, until they come and take it away. Then I'll move to someplace where I can, and will, own one or more.

Tennessee is a beautiful state.
I've been to Nashville a few times and always enjoyed my time there.
If I wasn't here taking care of mom in Florida I would be living in Tennessee.
Too many varmints,two and four legged,bugs,heat & snakes for me.
No mountains either!

I just realized something. I think all my guns and ammo are made in America. I did have a Belgium made browning 9 MM but I sold it and bought a shotgun, made in America.

So guns are helping the economy. The pee I use for scent when hunting deer is harvested from deer in America.

My Bow and Arrows are made in America.

I need to check the Camo clothes I wear, see where they are made.

I knew I could finally get something to say about the economy if I waited long enough.
My guns are helping Americans feed their families. Keeping people working. Buy more guns I say, support the last stronghold of American Manufacturing.

Crime statistics prove only one thing.
That we have crime.
And that we are civilized

Part of the reason crime rates are so high is civilization. Once we get civilized and start believing crime shouldn't be dealt with in the harshest manner possible the criminals gain the upper hand.
Good people don't like hurting people. They don't like punishing people. Unfortunately that makes them vulnerable.

The Big problem arises when those good people force their ideals on people that are just ALMOST good. Like me. I consider myself a pretty good guy but I believe in the death penalty.
It's an awful thing to take a life. I feel it when I kill a deer in the woods. I don't know how I would feel if I had to take a human life. Or, if I could. It is easy to say it, another thing to do it.

Some crimes have been reduced to the point of decriminalization. Rape use to be a hanging offense, so was kidnapping. and many others. It takes years to execute someone and Millions of dollars.
Now they use the argument that some people were actually innocent. We have DNA tests that cleared them.
Well those same DNA tests can also prove guilt so why not execute the ones that the DNA evidence proves they did it. You don't hear them say that though.

I find it very distasteful that it costs somewhere in the area of $240,000 a year to house a criminal..
Our folks on poverty level income live on what? $15,000 a year. I don't think we should spend any more than that on housing criminals. If they have to live in a stink hole that's to damn bad.
And if execution is painful that's just to damn bad too. I wonder how much pain the victim was in.
I just cannot understand the idea of keeping a murderer, or a serial rapist, or habitual criminals locked up in Jail.
Three strikes you are out should mean just that. Permanently out....
Dead.

Guns won't prevent crime. Guns won't cause crime. People do both. It is up to us to change the system but that's Politics. And we don't want to argue politics....do we?

Well all we need to do is talk about football and we have the whole set.

You mean REAL football or that silly game you guys across the pond call football?

Bill is right!
Criminals give up their rights to humane treatment when they do the crime.
The ACLU is a crock just like political correctness.
Criminal rights?
Phooey!

Hey Bill we have two kinds of football, soccer, and rugby.
Rugby is like American football only without the constant stopping for instructions cause seemingly American footballers cant run and think at the same time. And all the stupid protective padding and wimpish crash helmets..Is it played by men or mice.
Soccer is for wimps in comparison to rugby.
American football is for girls in comparison to both.

John, I agree with you completely.

I like to debate, but I keep forgetting, debating on a website like this draws anonymous folks who will not debate and answer questions, but "cherrypick" ideas to attack. My mistake here is in going for the bait, in wasting my time responding to anonymous, capricious points from folks who will not respond to me. This is time I can better spend other ways, like sharing ideas, kidding, and debating with folks like you, Bill, Big Jim, Jerry, Mrs. M, and the usual crew.

I find it refreshing to be able to discuss such difficult, emotionally charged issues with folks who will basically keep it civil. Sure we all get a little heated, but no one has gotten wild, not even the anonymous folks. You're good people.

Mike

Jim
All that stopping and getting instructions is because it is a highly intellectual game and requires perfect strategy. The need for Padding and helmets is obvious. American footballers are so incredibly big and powerful they must wear protection to keep from killing each other and the helmets are to keep from damaging their incredibly highly developed brains.
Otherwise they risk drain bamage.
The other more simple less violent game of football is actually called basketball.

Hey Bill they tell me that American football was born from a few folk trying to copy British rugby just like you did with our kids game rounders or as you call it baseball. Apparently they changed most of the rules to make it less skillful and tamer. They also needed a breather every few seconds to decide what to do next as they were not as fit either physically or mentally as British rugby players. They also wore silly padding everywhere and helmets because they were not tough enough to play without them.
Well that is what I have been told and it sure looks that way.

Sorry I haven't got time to check in here on a Daily Basis, Gents & Maam's...

I think Gun Ownership should be MANDATORY for the Law-Abiding Citizenry, along with Mandatory TRAINING in its Proper Useage..(Sorta like Driver Ed in HS...) (The Swiss have Universal Miliary Training to this day..AND..ya don't hear of any Schweitzers "Running Amok" & killin' off large groups of The Citizenry, now do you?)

What BETTER Deterrent to those bratty little Carjackers than swift and PERMANENT Justice-Rendered?

We waste TONS of Time and Taxpayers' Money TRYING to Be "Fair". Yet a Victim IS a Victim IS a Victim.

MOST of us already KNOW an "Exhibit A"... Here's Mine: My Producer Buddy, Gene Allen, got his Way-Back in the Branson Woods Home Invaded...2 Punk Kids. His fairly-new Pistol malfunctioned as they broke through his door. He ended up being pistol-whipped with his own pistol, terrorized for 3 hours, house looted & they even swiped a Grand Ole Opry ring off his finger Little Jimmy Dickens had given him years ago.

While I visited him, Gene slept sitting up in a chair WITH his lever-action Winchester Rifle...(And this was 2 months AFTER he'd been Victimized.) Gene's 73 years old, I'll add..the gashes on his face at least healed-quickly.

Now, IF his pistol HAD functioned Properly, no more Local Crime Wave, whatsoever. Case Closed.

Sadly-enough, even though Gene's pretty-sure it's the same 2 kids he fired for NOT mowing his lawn while he was away, BUT the Sheriff can't prove it (No evidence was ever found.)

Now, Big Jim..do you REALLY wanna take this guy's RIGHT to have a gun AWAY?

We don't ALL live in Big Cities.. And..even in Big Cities, the Police can't ALWAYS come Right Away when ya dial "9-1-1".

Bad Guys will ALWAYS have guns, somehow. But it's GREAT to read in the Paper the next morning that Grannie had a .38 and that Bad Boy AIN'T gonna grow up to be a Bad Man any-longer.

If criminals have "Nothing to Lose", why NOT be a Criminal?
Free Meals, roof-over-head, Learn New Tricks from your Cellmate.

But it's that seemingly Weak Victim-to-Be..the one with the Smith & Wesson tucked-away, ready to USE it..that makes a Creep Think Twice. They can spot a Cop a Mile Away...but Grannie with a Gun...What an Unpleasant Surprise, eh?

Yours for Keepin' That "Element of Surprise",
Stan

We'll put the Bolton Wanderers in to play against the Steelers and see what happens :-)

All kidding aside, I played in a band called the Bolton Wanderers, an original British pop style band with Liverpudlian, Michael Snow and our own "Mellow" Mel Owens who wrote (I love coincidences) the Super Bowl Shuffle.
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6994

So, the Patriots are going to sweep the table, 19-0 winning the Super Bowl this year, who's going to take the World Cup?